Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
>> Le 29 mai 09 à 16:11, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
>>> I think almost all these difficulties could be overcome if we had
>>> some sort of aliasing support, so that arbitrary objects in schema a
>>> could be aliased in schema b. If that were in place, best practice
>>> would undoubtedly be for each module to install in its own schema,
>>> and for the DBA to alias what is appropriate to their usage scenario.
>> This coupled with Peter's idea of nested namespace seems a killer
>> feature for me.
> What it sounds like to me is an amazingly complicated gadget with
> absolutely no precedent of successful use anywhere. We'll spend a year
> fooling with the details of this and be no closer to actually solving
> the problem at hand, namely getting a simple workable extension
> packaging facility.
Well, the part about no precedent is not true. See
for example. I didn't dream up the idea out of thin air ;-) (I pretty
much started my computing career over 20 years ago working on DB2).
However, the part about it being complex is true.
And that is why I agree completely that we should not hold up the
extension work waiting for it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2009-05-29 15:34:35|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-05-29 15:28:21|
|Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type |